I'm starting to seriously examine the literature of tantra after spending several years grounding myself in sūtra, abhidharma and Mahāyāna śāstras. I've had exposure to it before, but found I could not wrap my mind around it or appreciate it. Now I'm re-examining the material and thinking that it might very well be an advanced form of practice as it claims.

The fundamental reason Vajrayāna stakes a claim to rapidity is method. Those methods corral a person's embodiment and experience into practice in ways that sutra does not. Sutra is entirely a path of renunciation. Vajrayāna is a path of non-renunciation.

Huseng wrote:I'm trying to understand why a non-conceptual samadhi would be better suited to realizing emptiness than conventional dhyāna.

That is simple enough -- a conventional dhyana is conceptual. The realization of emptiness is non-conceptual. The more direct route one has to a repeatable experience of non-conceptuality, the easier it is to realize emptiness non-conceptually. Shamatha practice always possesses concepts. Shamatha is a conceptual meditation. Sutrayāna vipashyana, below the path of seeing is also conceptual. Sutra does not possess any methods to approximate the experience of non-conceptual emptiness. Vajrayāna does.

The claim, though, that I'm trying to understand is that the nirvikalpa samādhi achieved in tantra is superior to the one achieved through conventional dhyāna.

It is easier train in the experience of non-conceptuality in Vajrayāna. Sutra has no specific methods to train in non-conceptuality, and one should not train in nirvikalpa samādhi below the path of seeing in Mahāyāna.

ronnewmexico wrote:I don't know tenzin..but I'd suspect a physical consort is absolutely necessary for the realization of that tantric practice which performed correctly would bring a great spiritual advancement I suppose, but would personally fall short of saying that is the only or one way,

Sometimes what HHDL says is not what he writes, so I often check to see what is specifically officiallly written to determine his specific intent.He is quite complex and seemingly is his way of communication benefiting a complex person. The most complex perhaps.

Sorry for the delayed response, NM Ron. When I posted what the DL "said", I meant that more broadly, to include his writings. It's surprising how often he discusses tantric technique in his books, and elsewhere. In the Berzin Archives, he says, "Being able to have sexual contact without releasing semen is something needed when you practice the advanced stages of the completion stage."

In "The Good Heart", he makes an interesting comment that implies that consort practice is allowed monastics:"The sexual organ is utilized, but the energy movement taking place is fully controlled. It should never be let out. This energy must be controlled and eventually returned to other parts of the body. And here we see there is a special connection with celibacy." (It doesn't break celibacy vows if you don't "spill the seed")In "How to Practice, Way to a Meaningful Life" he also discusses tantric technique, and in an interview with Judith Simmer-Brown for her book on Dakinis, he says a consort is needed to raise the Inner Fire (tummo).

However, my comment that there are other ways to raise the Kundalini, was not referring to tantric practice, and so, I guess, might be considered off-topic. Mea culpa!

I agree with what you say, (or as i read what you say) in your, this last post. But the scholors seem (again as I read it) to be agreeing with your first post.

The idea one has to raise this force control this force or correctly apprehend this force.... is what I firmly agree with. The actual means, with consort I would expect would be most effective and utilizable but I would simply not outrule other means. As Tummo to my understanding may be sucessfully accomplished without the sexual componant of consort though the energies employeed may be as hand to fist.

But the scholors seem to be saying that sexual tantric practice can be equally obtained for effect with no consort..which I personally do not see how. Not that one could not engage to some beneficial effect but a lesser effect. Basically a consort would allow a degree of nonceptuality which with no concort is much more difficulateThe functionality of it seems beyond me. To excite the sex one must without consort have object of some sort to focus upon.Without object is the intention of tantric practice of sex to my understanding. Object I would expect could solely be pathways and things of that sort..... but that would make it seem then that the higher practice is without consort and the lesser being with consort...that seems not to be the case in my experience.REason of vow is why a monastic may not engage with consort(as vow has karmic implication) not for reason of lesser practice.

But being not necessarily even buddhist find discussing this not all that important. I would not expect to engage either tantric practice completely successfully but do not think this is the only means to highest spiritual attainment in this human life. I suspect fear and pain may be utilized and the death process itself to great result...but who knows.The scholors say it I guess it is true for humans. I see no distinction in energy, just differing distinction in pathway. How can one say this or that thing inciting this or that pathway is more than the other? I being not close to that thing of greatest enlightenment for human can not speak. What little I know speaks against that...so I don't care.I then say....I am not buddhist nor I'd guess human So what does it matter to me?

Mostly I's guess humans being as humans are...beating off or having joyfull orgasm with partner is what they call tantra.I may beat off on occasion...I call it beating off . I do try to dedicate it in a sort of way and pay attention to it and the things that elicit it, and the mind result of it(why do all sicknesses stop for that minute or so, why is conscious thought not possible in it? ) even the pathway of it as my entire practice is watching mind, and this is what I am instructed to do by spiritual friend ....but I know I am still just beating off.But not a tantric practitioner am I...only a mind watcher. Not even mahamudra, that being to profound. So take what I say with a grain of salt.......the scholors seem to agree with your, first statement.So I stand corrected.Your second statement I seem to agree with it totally in what I read it to be. As i read it.... it extends or amplifies the first to different meaning.So I agree. But them maybe they would not agree..I won't spaek for them .

AS to retention as opposed to expulsion...I would personally say I find differing effects of both. I expect both could be utilized as means. I would suppose the retention means has longer more profound effect, and would be preferable in most contexts. Then a monastic could participate and be still monastic....Yes I agree 100%. Then one could have their cake and eat it to. But of course I am but a layperson of little understanding of the profound. Monks however at times have said they did not participate in sex with female(or male) if no orifice was entered.(I forget the exact wording)...so I'd guess there are differing interpretations of this sex thing. Expulsion I would say would be normal sex most commonly not tantra. Occasionally tantra.... but as tantra without consort is a much more difficult practice, with potential of the same effect..... but as it is suchly much more difficult a lesser practice.

But this lowly layperson is uneducated and does not call himself buddhist...so consider source. I shouid never have entered into this discussion I'd guess.Something drew me in..perhaps I was thinking of beating off or some other thing like that. The more i have watched that thing...the more I think it has little to no reality... in that what we have sex with is always concept. Not real, not a tiny bit. Not hair not color not skin not touch not feel...they all but remind us of concept we have developed that drives this thing of energy. And energy it is only it seems.

YOur comments tenzin, are well thought.I could say what little I have learned in this life I have learned the most It seems from sex. But then..... would I not be very biased to continue that as practice...I would. I find no such implication in going to places of fear or impending death.....so I suspect I may say the same thing.....but am inclined to not say so publically as much. I would have to do such as much and that is very uncomfortable and uneasy. AS those places are not so easy and pleasant, and thusly unless very motivated to the spiritual I don't go to those places..... I don't say that so often.So if I said to exculusion one or the other I would look very closely as to why I am saying that thing...but that's just me.

But I suspect I have learned equally from both. So a layperson of little education and small practice finds all equally beneficial...this and thatMore profound peoples, and practices and schools of learning can qualify those things...I find all equal in that. I am simple.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

ronnewmexico wrote:I don't know tenzin..but I'd suspect a physical consort is absolutely necessary for the realization of that tantric practice which performed correctly would bring a great spiritual advancement I suppose, but would personally fall short of saying that is the only or one way,

Sometimes what HHDL says is not what he writes, so I often check to see what is specifically officiallly written to determine his specific intent.He is quite complex and seemingly is his way of communication benefiting a complex person. The most complex perhaps.

Sorry for the delayed response, NM Ron. When I posted what the DL "said", I meant that more broadly, to include his writings. It's surprising how often he discusses tantric technique in his books, and elsewhere. In the Berzin Archives, he says, "Being able to have sexual contact without releasing semen is something needed when you practice the advanced stages of the completion stage."

In "The Good Heart", he makes an interesting comment that implies that consort practice is allowed monastics:"The sexual organ is utilized, but the energy movement taking place is fully controlled. It should never be let out. This energy must be controlled and eventually returned to other parts of the body. And here we see there is a special connection with celibacy." (It doesn't break celibacy vows if you don't "spill the seed")In "How to Practice, Way to a Meaningful Life" he also discusses tantric technique, and in an interview with Judith Simmer-Brown for her book on Dakinis, he says a consort is needed to raise the Inner Fire (tummo).

However, my comment that there are other ways to raise the Kundalini, was not referring to tantric practice, and so, I guess, might be considered off-topic. Mea culpa!

In the Gelugpa system it's taught there are two ways to achieve enlightenment - by utilizing the mind of clear light that naturally arises at the time of death or by generating that subtle mind through practice with a consort. Because of the importance given to monastic vows the first way is generally considered superior because the yogi maintains the outer aspect of pure morality which is more in keeping with Shakyamuni Buddhas teaching and example and is less confusing for ordinary people who don't understand tantra. Technically speaking a yogi who is a monk and who has complete control will not break his celibacy vow but that doesn't mean it's ok for him have a consort. If, as occasionally happens, a monk is at such an advanced level he is able to practice in that way he will return his vows first so as not to bring the sangha into disrepute. But it's important to remember that even a lay yogi has the vow not to emit semen so ordinary sexual activity is a transgression for anyone with tantric vows, monastic or not. The notion that tantrikas can do whatever they like is complete nonsense. Desire is generated and utilized in the path but it is something very few people have the skill to do and while many - almost always men - claim to be practicing tantra usually it's nothing more than a justification for their attachment to ordinary pleasure.

Tilopa... you are saying then....But it's important to remember that even a lay yogi has the vow not to emit semen so ordinary sexual activity is a transgression for anyone with tantric vows, monastic or not...anyone who holds tantric vows or one who holds tantric vows sexual in nature.

I have heard of peoples emitting semen even in Tummo, quite unintentionally, or in sleep who have not accomplished dreams....so then you say their tantric vow is abbregated....I don't say you are wrong......just explain in more depth, please if you would .

I honestly did not know they were equal in Gelugpa....I know they are equal....but then suspected I was not human.....as some have stated that it seems for humans.... they were not equal So there must be some explaination.So I am glad to hear that!. I perhaps am human.....after all. No matter really..but still glad I have no accomplishment whatsoever...but I think it is not so difficult to state what is equal and what isn't, in some things.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

Tilopa wrote: But it's important to remember that even a lay yogi has the vow not to emit semen so ordinary sexual activity is a transgression for anyone with tantric vows, monastic or not.

Actually tantric vows are ultimately between oneself and one's Vajra master. So the direct instructions from one's root Guru are the indicator of proper conduct in this regard. That said, even in the general descriptions of Vajrayana conduct given in Dudjom RInpoche's commentary on Ngari Panchen's text "Perfect Conduct" there is exception for times when it is appropriate to emit semen -assuming one has control-. And at least in the translation I possess it is clear that the downfall only occurs at inappropriate times when with a desirous mind one intentionally emits semen. So if one doesn't consciously want to emit, then it would seem from this reading that there is some leeway-- and especially in the case of nocturnal emission, etc.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

ronnewmexico wrote:Tilopa... you are saying then....But it's important to remember that even a lay yogi has the vow not to emit semen so ordinary sexual activity is a transgression for anyone with tantric vows, monastic or not...anyone who holds tantric vows or one who holds tantric vows sexual in nature.

I have heard of peoples emitting semen even in Tummo, quite unintentionally, or in sleep who have not accomplished dreams....so then you say their tantric vow is abbregated....I don't say you are wrong......just explain in more depth, please if you would

Emitting semen in a dream is not a fault for a monk but is for those with tantric vows and I think if it happens during tummo practice it would also be considered a fault though without intention not as serious as ejaculating due to ordinary sexual activity. I was taught that in such a case the karma needs to be purified with a tsog offering and the vow restored through self initiation but maybe different systems explain it otherwise. Reading things on this and other forums and just generally it seems that many people do have the mistaken idea that lay tantric practitioners aren't obliged to be celibate and while true in the sense they don't necessarily take a vow of celibacy the way monastics do when you analyze what's really involved and look carefully at the tantric vows celibacy is more or less implied. At least in the Gelugpa system. Also the sexual activity engaged in by yogis is far from ordinary - the consort is supposed to be of the same or higher spiritual attainment so just bonking any pretty young girl is not where it's at unfortunately. There are other prerequisites and considerations as well.

Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche once likened the use of desire on the path to the way atomic bombs work...conventional explosives are used to trigger the extra powerful nuclear explosion and in a similar way ordinary desire is used to trigger the experience of extraordinary bliss ....but only for those accomplished yogis who have masterful control of their channels, winds and drops.In the wrong hands conventional explosives can still do a lot of damage.

Well we have two issues here.1)...the Galugpa would then suppose only monastic or lay people with no intention to have children would engage in tantra2) the Nyingma participant would suppose(I suppose) only one means is available for as close as we can get to enlightenment in this human life...tantric sex act.

But yes...we find those that practice tantra with family. Apparently some practicing while still having children.And we have some monastic that appear to maintain vow yet seem as close as we can get to enlightenment, without leaving vows behind even for just a few moments. I would suppose a couple may be named ...

AGain it doesn't bother me in a personal perspective but it appears there are unanswered questions.

Just looking at this thing very presumptiously as I look at looking at only sex act being fortitutious for enlightenment being found quite self serving...is this thing of tantric sex then involved in the claimant of sangha as only monastic or only lay.....is it wound around that...I wonder. For full enilightenment we must in this school be lay in that school be monastic...something to that effect.

AS a aside I have heard rumor of consort being selected in some place and time from those considered the lowest of the low or untouchable in some contexts. But as untouchable is not a tibetan term that would infer other place of tantric practice. jUst that I have heard of that. ASide to topic.That would infer some variance to actual practice....I agree and have stated this thing is mostly used as excuse so I am not claiming that.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

ronnewmexico wrote:Well we have two issues here.1)...the Galugpa would then suppose only monastic or lay people with no intention to have children would engage in tantra

Monasticism is considered the best foundation for tantric practice but even in this system a lay yogi can produce children if such children are bodhisattvas in need of a human body.

2) the Nyingma participant would suppose(I suppose) only one means is available for as close as we can get to enlightenment in this human life...tantric sex act.

Some Nyingma lamas are also celibate monks.

Just looking at this thing very presumptiously as I look at looking at only sex act being fortitutious for enlightenment being found quite self serving...is this thing of tantric sex then involved in the claimant of sangha as only monastic or only lay.....is it wound around that...I wonder. For full enilightenment we must in this school be lay in that school be monastic...something to that effect.

If a yogi wants to become enlightened before the time of death he must practice with a consort...even in the Gelugpa system. If he waits until the clear light of death he can stay ordained.

Tilopa wrote:But it's important to remember that even a lay yogi has the vow not to emit semen so ordinary sexual activity is a transgression for anyone with tantric vows, monastic or not. .

There is very little agreement on this point among different lineages, so it is best not to generalize. In other words, this is definitely not the case for Sakyapas and Nyingmapas. Emission of semen is only a downfall when one is engaging in completion stage practices. At other times it is not a downfall in any sense at all.

Namdrol wrote: There is very little agreement on this point among different lineages, so it is best not to generalize. In other words, this is definitely not the case for Sakyapas and Nyingmapas. Emission of semen is only a downfall when one is engaging in completion stage practices. At other times it is not a downfall in any sense at all.

Well this is totally insignificant to me, and has no personal relevence but....If a yogi wants to become enlightened before the time of death he must practice with a consort...even in the Gelugpa system. If he waits until the clear light of death he can stay ordained.

full enlightenment is possible then as human?

If not. then what of Millarepa Gampopa and others... did they as well practice with a consort? Did they attain what we may call significant advancement in this thing without apparent consort? As I would suppose full enlightenment is not possible as human.

I think to produce children there is a emission. I would not deny some do produce excellent apparent bodhsiattavas but these things seem to hint of some other things.Nyignma would then have to disrobe however shortly to reach this spiritual level...which seems a bit odd. Monastic is the best vehicle but we must not follow it to completion. Seems that there are inconsistancies which speak to other things.

I am not taking a position on either side, considering it irrelevent but not irrelevent to the discussion.

I base my own contentions flatly stated as I find this for myself in myself and none other.But with all these apparent inconsistancies I would venture the supposition that this thing is used for other purpose...to furthur some other opinions on some other things.It appears that the differences in this thing are apparent and the consistancies do not make sense in many manners.So no head nor tails of it....but such a thing is so close to us I would expect that..so perhaps I am finding what I expect.In any event it seems odd.Personally I see no path of energy differing in nature than any other. Different places different channels but is not the same the energy the same energy? I suppose one pathway is easier than another in use, but to singularly state this way is the only way....I can't see that. If it was so...how would death be any improvement upon the situation. SEx that particular pathway would essentially dissolve....well those are the type of questions I would verse if I had a doubt in this thing...I don't so I don't care. Seems odd...unless significantly explained to the other I would stay with that...seems odd.Very educational it is, actual clear light or ground not replication or smaller glimpse of that thing...I would suppose not. Human prevents that real thing I'd guess. WE humans being conceptual in origin. Oh well meandering along....I am no Buddhist and go back to being no human..it was fun while it lasted.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

ronnewmexico wrote:Well this is totally insignificant to me, and has no personal relevence but....If a yogi wants to become enlightened before the time of death he must practice with a consort...even in the Gelugpa system. If he waits until the clear light of death he can stay ordained.

full enlightenment is possible then as human?

The whole point is that ONLY human beings can attain enlightenment. Even Bodhisattvas dwelling in the pure lands pray for a human rebirth so they can practice tantra and complete the path.

If not. then what of Millarepa Gampopa and others... did they as well practice with a consort? Did they attain what we may call significant advancement in this thing without apparent consort? As I would suppose full enlightenment is not possible as human.

Not sure, maybe they practiced with a consort at some point or maybe they achieved E at the time of death. I'm not very knowledgeable about the life stories of past masters.

Seems that there are inconsistancies which speak to other things......But with all these apparent inconsistancies I would venture the supposition that this thing is used for other purpose...to furthur some other opinions on some other things....It appears that the differences in this thing are apparent and the consistancies do not make sense in many manners.

Things may appear discordant when comparing different systems but within those systems there is not necessarily any inconsistency....still Tibetan Buddhism, as with other traditions, is not without it's controversies and differences of opinion. It can make things very confusing and probably why it's said we should find the tradition with which we are most comfortable and practice within that system and not mix the different presentations.

Personally I see no path of energy differing in nature than any other. Different places different channels but is not the same the energy the same energy? I suppose one pathway is easier than another in use, but to singularly state this way is the only way....I can't see that.

No one says that. Different schools have different methods which suit different people. It's not the case that only Gelugpa have the right method or that Nyingma is right and everyone else is wrong.

I don't know Tilopa. I hear what you're saying.On the human being attaining full enlightenment, I don't know. It seems that the course body certainly provides opportunity for great progression and this be one of the means but full enlightenment....I suspect it will not be found as human. This body/state being faulted in its inceptive factor, when one realized such a thing this would seemingly quickly dissolve into the basis from which it arose. So no human would exist.So enlightenment would not occur as human.Death as means..can we say that a thing dying is already dead. Is it dead as means..no. Dying as in relation to a living thing. So likewise if one attained enlightenment with the dying process one is not yet dead while doing this thing. Perhaps in a physical sense but in a spiritual sense the dissolution of the elements and the varying portrayals are all in relatiionship to the ending of the human body as form. So it seems we could not say that was enlightenment if that was to occur as not human....as its basis is human. It is no dead thing that seemingly may attain this thing.

So from two sides there seems inconsistancy.

But in any event I agree the various schools must meet with the predispositions of their adherants.I have wondered then also the basis of women in this thing. Certainly all has been framed in the context of male. Women have various secretions in preparation for the sex act but ejaculations...seemingly not. So as we know beings may enlightend as woman and highest tantra apparently makes mention of this....this seems also inconsistant.

And with this thing, there may be occasion when a male does not ejaculate, many occasions. There are occasions in which no consort of any sort is employed.....so. This is not sex I can appropriately say. It is a misnomer, and a false thing to say so.This appears not sex at all but utilization of a particular pathway,normally the sexual passageway which makes it not sex at all.

Useage of passageway of energy..Yes...the correct thing to say by utilization of passageways of energy within the body one may attain enlightenment(come as close to that as possible without dissolution of the body form).Nothing more could be said.

and saying sex only in tantra is the only path to that thing....a bit misleading is that statement, as no sex is occuring.

Those that want it to be said that way, the sex thing....I could suppose they have intention of substantiation of other things not connected to this thing.SEx is a big big bugaboo in about all cultures. So this thing seems machined in that way...

no sex it is.

My supposition remains

And woman may assuredly utilize the same exact passageways with no ejaculation and nothing male about it at all.Which is why woman can attain enlightenment as assuredly as men(as close to that as is possible)we know this is possible.It is possible as the passageway is the thing, not the organ, nor the release of seeman. Those additions, by my take, may like as not, be included in this thing....being biased in origin and inceptive factor.

And when I die I feel certain my human body will feel what I as male human take to be great sex thing. A course of energy which will flow on and through starting low and ending high, but not perceived as ending but continuing into the things above with great light courseness fineness and disruption....It will take my whole body be my whole body and spread upward and on.I can call that thing that will happen sex...but that would be again...a misnomer. A thing called wrongly.Energy it is only that.Bliss feeling that is no matter but yes it will feel that way if we could be called then feeling.Seems like sex as we can conceptualize any thing found this is our want...sex...no.

So I suppose that could be just to my personal way of looking that would allow the inconsistancies which seem apparent.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

In Kagyuy would then his relationship approximate diety yoga or sexual yoga or both?

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

Well..just personally I guess I would be quite satisfied with Gampopas level of attainment by whatever means he attained it

Just ventureing..... I'd guess Millarepa in Kagyu, since interaction with diety being a internal not perceived external phenomena.....that such would again not approximate sex as we know it to be. But again utilization of certain passageways.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.